Just posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review updated with lens data

We've updated our Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 review with an additional page of lens data, brought to you in collaboration with DxOMark. The RX1's headline feature may well be its 24MP full frame image sensor, but the fixed Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 35mm F2 lens is an equally crucial part of its imaging chain. We've added a full set of technical lens measurements to our review to illustrate how it performs, presented in our unique data widget. You can also see how it measures up against the best 35mm lenses available for SLRs.

Comments

DPR, on page 11 (Lens test data) you state: "The RX1's lens shows noticeable barrel distortion - at 1.9%, it's a bit more pronounced than you'd get from a highly-corrected SLR lens. "Then on the next page: "The RX1's lens design is fairly well corrected as it stands (there's around 0.7% barrel distortion)"

A Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 35mm f2.0 lens is about $2000 alone. So it is interesting that the lens DXO mark is about the same as the $450 Samyang 35mm f1.4 at f2.0 (to match the Sony). The Samyang is actually a lot brighter in the corners too with less complex distortion. Same goes for the Sigma 35mm f1.4 at $900.

If I were as conflicted over this camera as you clearly are, I would have to go out and get one of these bad boys and shoot with it for a while so that I could see for myself what all the hub-bub is about.

RX1 is the Overall Camera of the Year - Imaging Resource says: "The image quality of the Sony RX1 isn't merely great, it's exceptional. And then there's the lens. Put simply, the Sony RX1's lens is the sharpest, most uniform full-frame 35mm optic we've ever tested. Having a sensor derived from that in the Sony A99, this comes as no surprise: That camera takes great photos as well, but the RX1 more than matches it. And it stacks up against the best the full-frame field has to offer, without limitation. It amazed us that we could shoot wide open at f/2 and not have to worry that the large aperture would compromise the quality of our images; our shots were sharp from corner to corner, even wide open. Overall, it's hard to overstate just how impressed we were with the RX1's lens, and that it handily beat the A99 for sharpness, even with the best lens we could put on it."

Maybe it's not the camera for me.... Too much for a 'one-trick' pony. HOWEVER, it shows that much of the kit needed for a FF camera can be squashed into a body about the size of an old 35mm camera (who'd have thought!). OK there's little things like a mirror box etc missing, but even bolting them on (or having an integrated EVF) it looks promising to me.Next generation with SLT? Might make the plunge into Sony-world.....

Match? Match for what? Yes the DP2 produces brilliantly high resolution photos, to be sure. I can appreciate the phenomenal detail in the SP2 shots on my 2560x1600 - 30" Dell but not on my iPad and I don’t find SP2 photographs to be particularly pleasing to my eyes. The point being; yes the Sigma wins the high res battle at ISO 200 and below, but that is where it ends. The RX1 crushes the DP2 in all other categories; Lens character, speed, any ISO over 200 (show me a DP2 photo at 3200), bokeh, etc., did I mention speed? The shtick on the DP2 is that you MUST have perfect conditions and the patience of Job in order to get the most of the camera, with my RX1; I can make lemons out of lemonade in almost any situation. Unless you’re talking about printing billboards, these two cameras don’t belong in the same conversation.

If you need speed and high ISO then fine but for the main type of photography for which I would use this type of camera (landscape), I want the best possible IQ. The Sigma's colours are better, the lens (unlike the lens on the Sony) displays no CA and the Sigma's resolution of fine detail, particularly of random areas (e.g. leaves), is far better than the Sony. Regarding fine detail, it could be that DPR's RX1 real world examples are over-sharpened (sharpening artefacts are plain to see) and over-compressed. The RX1 is certainly far more versatile than the Sigma and wins on every count other than IQ. The problem is that the RX1 is being sold as the ultimate compact camera for IQ but it is beaten by a camera of 1/3 of its price.

I disagree with your interpretation of image quality. You seem to be of the opinion that IQ is synonymous with lots of detail or high resolution…I do not (although the RX1 does excel at both). A camera’s ability to resolve detail at a high level does NOT necessarily make it superior to others in terms of image quality; it makes it an excellent choice for someone needing to print large posters or billboards. Additionally, the DP2s rendering looks too harsh for me; I’m ok with it, just not to the point where I would argue so fervently, as you have. I have no idea what your credentials are but I do know that many professional photographers and pro-sumer enthusiast s that shoot regularly with the camera (yes, they and I need reasonable speed and decent high ISO performance) as well as sites like DPR, Luminous Landscapes, Imaging Resource and many others of whom have reviewed the RX1, regularly tout its superb image quality. The DP2 is simply NOT in the same class as the RX1-no way.

m4/3" cameras use Pana sensors that can readout in high speeds for AF. I don't know for sure but RX1 looks different.

m4/3" lenses are mostly of very small apertures (we'll need a G/mZD18/1.0 to do the same work as RX1). while these small aperture lenses are challenged to collect enough light, they have deeper depth of field that contrast AF can work easier.

The X100 created huge interest from the audience. The RX1 feels like it is being pushed to death by Dpreview, whether we like it or not. OMD was grudgingly glossed over despite huge interest. I expect the next Pentax will be another fly by appraisal too.

This camera NEVER can reach picture quality of Merrill DP2 on basic ISO. NEVER. You don't believe? Check this images and compare with RX1.Images are in discussion from Frank.http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sigma_dp1_merrill_review/comments/

NO WAY. You never will reach with X100 or OM-D so good IQ. Just compare resolution per pixel on those images. Sharpness on sides and corners, etc. Just put 2 pictures beside each other and zoom to 100%. You will see big difference.

Sigma disadvantage is being slow and worse IQ on higher ISO energy consumption etc. But on base ISO IQ has no competitor especially in APS-C sensors. Only IQ comparable is from D800E.Check this. Comparison by professional.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3VjyHQiqdE

Sigma picture is sharp because of the Foveon magic. Not only over RX-1, but to all Bayer based camera - 5D Mk III, Nikon D800... D800e maybe hold up pretty good, but for the cost of moire. So if you want the best IQ for ISO 200 and below, don't waste money, get the Sigma.

Really so you are basing your statement on various "reviews" and it's sister camera the RX100. The RX100 has nothing in common with the RX1 so your comparison is baseless. As for the designers being consumer led, and Sony camera's not being good to use, very subjective and also for both the RX1 and RX100 totally incorrect.

"Sony never feel like they quite understand how to make a camera that is good to use."

Well given my A77 is the best camera ergonomically I have ever used (and I have been into photography for over 35 years) I would say your sweeping generalisation should be ignored.

How good cameras are from a usability point of view is largely personal preference but my comments on the A77 are largely echoed by other users. Now granted this comment section is about a different camera and one I have never used myself but I could not let your sweeping and inaccurate generalisation go by without comment

@JustinL01, ergonomic design and its evaluation is not a science, you can disagree or choose to ignore an opinion on this aspect of a camera, but you cannot say it is 'incorrect', totally or otherwise. ;)

If, as you seem to be saying, Sony have rethought their approach to designing compacts since the RX100, then I look forward to trying one!

Why are there no details about AF speed in this review, especially given that slow AF speed is one of the main complaints heard about this otherwise great camera? The "Performance" pages of the reviews from this site of many prior cameras that pushed the limits of quality in a small camera (e.g. GF1, E-P1, X100, E-M5) all have an entire "Autofocus speed" section, with specific comparative comments vs. other known cameras or actual timings with tenths-of-seconds precision. This review says only "the RX1 can acquire focus within a second, almost all of the time".

Within a second?!? What kind of information is that? The Olympus E-P1 was roundly criticized several years (and camera generations) ago for having AF times of half to 2/3 of a sec, so how can this review not criticize 1sec normal-light AF speed and/or provide more detail. Street photography and kids require fast AF sometimes and people want to know just how much AF speed they are giving up for the RX1's other benefits.

There are a ton of other reviews available for you that will satisfy your craving for more detailed AF performance data. In the time it took you to bitch about this review, you could have simply Googled RX1 reviews and you’d be reading for the rest of the day ;)

photog4u: I expect DPReview to have the most authoritative and systematic info, regardless of other reviews. But I did Google, and most other reviews make only qualitative statements. Eg, Steve Huff's dominates the top results and his videos are pathetic. He just shows it locking focus in clips where you can't even see when he pushes the shutter button. There's not a wealth of info as detailed as the DPReviews reviews of, for example, the Panasonic GF1 or Olympus E-P1. But if you have a link to what you think is the best review for RX1 AF speed, please share it.

HowaboutRAW: CDAF varies a lot in its speed across cameras. The Olympus E-M5/E-PL5/E-PM2 are super-fast, easily as fast as the PDAF in entry-level DSLRs. The RX1 is clearly slower, but it's hard to determine from anywhere how much slower. The superior CDAF algorithms Panasonic and Olympus have developed are clearly a big part of their speed, so I think your claim that an RX1 type of camera would require a new sensor is incorrect. Various Fujifilm cameras have had their AF speed increased significantly via firmware updates. It'd be nice to have a numerical rating for the RX1 speed so that if it gets improved we can actually tell how much better it is (eg, relative to the fastest CDAF such as in the m4/3 cameras).

It’s not so much that contrast AF can’t be faster, this Sony RX1 didn’t seem bad when I tried it.But phase detection AF, when done correctly, beats contrast systems easily. So Sony can build phase detect AF into the sensor chip. But that will have to wait for the next version.

Sony has a lot to be proud of here. Those Fuji XTrans cameras have problems with greenery and the raw extraction software that does outdoor trees well doesn’t do indoor high ISOs well. Or high ISOs in general.

Given the availability of extraordinary lenses and now phase detect AF on the imaging sensor, I’m more interested in the Samsung NX300 and still hypothetical NX3 than either the Sony RX1 or the Fuji XPro1 or XE1. I’m not someone who says: “I must have a ‘full frame’ camera”.

I just can't get past that. Blame it on my age. Texting is a solution looking for a problem, a Tweet is the sound a bird makes, and as cameras go, the viewfinder is as integral a component as the shutter.

I like the camera but the idea VF is external and it has to be removed and re-inserted for portability is difficult me. I have damaged an external viewfinder (Oly E-PL1 with VF3) before. I need VF; my eyesight is not that great anymore. Composing using the primary LCD vs. via VF doesn't produce the same result for me. Solid hand held vs. holding at fingertips. I can compose and get nicer shots via VF. So, that's why I was a bit critical about the VF couple of comments ago in the other RX1 review link. I got hammered by RX1 users for that statement.But I think overall it's a good attempt by Sony but I may wait for the next release. Sony has the tendency to add more features in the next release and sell it at lower initial price. Or they might leave RX1 as a unique attempt and there might not be another hardware upgrade but there'll be plenty of Firmware upgrade.

Got to agree with you there as well. I'd never get over the lack of a built in viewfinder of some kind- one way or the other. I've just personally purchased an Alpha A850 and with a small prime lens I feel it's quite portable and I'd trade nothing for that gorgeous view it affords.

Um, you do know that there is a big screen on the back, don't you? This can be used for framing pictures. And you won't have to run down the chemists and wait for a week to see your pictures because they pop up instantly! The world changed while you were trying to focus your box brownies.

I like shooting with the RX1. I LOVE shooting with it when I have attached the optional EVF. It’s just a better camera with the EVF installed. If you can afford a ridiculously priced 3000 fixed lens compact then you can afford its pricey EVF. If you can't afford it, then don't worry about it, it’s not for you......

Harry, it is a bit hard to vote for a built-in EVF, since the main point of this camera is size. Offering it as a separate solution is very wise i.m.o. Since you really need a VF, you need to stick with larger cameras.

The missing charger is a bad joke though, but somehow typical for Sony.

Actually, it seems like charging in camera was a deliberate choice for both the RX100 and RX1 to keep the traveling package as compact as possible, which is the whole point of these cameras to begin with...I say that also because they usually do provide external chargers and want you to charge externally. But if charging internally is a hurdle, you can always spend a whopping $10 so you can charge both internally and externally.

And that's why I'm only looking how Sony is developing their cameras. Once they make a successor of the RX1 with a built-in EVF, I would gladly consider it (if there is still no real competition aside of the RX1 itself) and probably by that time, have some money for a possible RX2 or whatever name they give to it.. RX1 it's a good camera but as with many of Sony cameras, it seems like the first generation of NEX-series, RX-series and SLT-series, they try to make it as small as technology allows to prove something then afterwards, they take their market base more seriously.

See RX100, RX1, NEX-5, NEX-3, A33, A55. All of them 1st generation of their lineup, and all of them being advertised as small and with big sensor compared to the competition.

I have a long history of photography. Fron 35mm film to digital starting with the D70, moving to the D200 and lastly the D7000. All great cameras in their moments in time. Ihave 27 000 digial photos in my iMAC. Last week I bought the RX1. Since then i have taken approx 200 photos. And i can honestly say i have produced several of the top 10 photos of my life in that week. That is simply fantastic. One week. 200 photos. And several would move into my top 10 spots. I would even say the top 1 spot. You can say what you want about this camera. But above is in my world beyond value for money. One week. 200 photos. Several top 10 of my life.

Same question but applied to a 35mm film SLR body or possibly a M mount range finder.

I can usually guess that a photo will work when I see it printed well or the entire file, but rarely can I quickly say that's some of my best shooting. Drawing that conclusion takes a second and third look over time.

Glad you like the RX1, seems like a very nice camera. I wish Leica would push the M to be as capable at high ISOs.

I think for the more amateurs like me, the smaller camera is just easier to handle when taking pictures. So I end up having the camera on me, and getting a shot off quicker than if I had to take the larger DSLR out of the case, lift it and compose the picture. The off-the-cuff shots are easier to execute (for me) and therefore am able to take advantage of opportunities a bit better. But I like the DSLR's too so this is not meant to denigrate them. Just that the Sony RX1 (and 100) is relatively quick and easy, and it brings home the bacon with regards to picture quality.

@Schonbeck I am really happy for you. I have few questions.What about this camera that let you take such good pictures that you couldn't take before?Full frame?Lens?Better sensor?A combination of the above?How your pictures are now different from your older pictures?Sharper?Better color?Better DOF?

Thanks for the replies. First of all - this is not to bash on DSLRs - for action photography and for tele zoom those are a better choice. Some answers to above. HowaboutRAW: - No I have not printed - i rarely do. But i view them on my 27" iMac and some times on a 55" Samsung TV. - No I did not use a Zeiss lens - the lenses used where mainly the Nikon 50mm 1.8 and the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR.

aftab:- I am not sure actually - i think it is a mix - coming from a D7000 whit a lot lower resolution that might play apart in it. Full frame does play it part in that i can do ISO 1600 without any hesitation. ISO800 on the RX1 i would rate as ISO100 on my D7000. ANd the DOF gives a pretty dramatic result. The lens in my opinion is simply fantastic (as this article proves) But i guess for me it all boils down to sharpness. The camera simply delivers fantastic sharpness in all situations. Color, exposure etc. are also great but the sharpness straight out of the camera is outstanding. Then of course it is a matter of portability etc. Then yes the auto focus is not as good as on my D7000 - but it is not as bad as people say. I would say definitely a bit better than the NEX6 (which i also have).

As an additional example - this morning i took some pictures while having breakfast with my two kids (2 and 4 years old). Pretty weak light at the kitchen table. And I just snapped along and every single picture comes out great - color, exposure and the fantastic sharpness - and this without almost any effort from my side. Camera in P, and auto ISO. Especially in the eyes of subjects - I have never seen eyes come out this way before - with a unique reflection and a tremendous sharpness. Almost feels like there is an algorithm in the processor that is looking for eyes and then tries to optimize them. I´ll try and upload a picture from this morning so you can see for yourselves.

I actually bought the D600 with the 85mm 1.8 - but i returned it after 2 days. The sharpness was a disaster and the entire camera felt sluggish. Maybe something was wrong with it. But if you look at the review for the D600 on dpreview in the JPEG-comparisons the sharpness IS a disaster - i do not understand why other people have not noticed this. Yes - full frame should be RAW but sometimes you just want to snap away some JPEGs. At least i do - i am not a professional but a very enthusiastic amateur.

Pixel peeping the real-world shots of the lighthouse and Tesla Building, I can't say that they shout 'buy me' as do the Sigma Merrill examples. In comparison with Merrill (I don't own a Merrill BTW), the Sony shots lack sharpness, despite being over-sharpened. It's possible that the artefacts caused by excessive sharpening coupled with too much jpeg compression is getting in the way?

I see we are still getting a load of comment from people that haven't tried the RX1 out and yet feel they know enough to dismiss and criticise it, once again the AF is not slow it is fine and accurate in normal usage.

The quality of the pictures rival the FF DSLR's such as the Nikon 800/800E etc etc without the bulk. As for the lens not resolving the same detail as a C3 and the serious flaw of vignetting easy to correct.

Read the reviews and what the professional photographers who are actually using the RX1 seem to be disagreeing with the internet reviewers, funny that!

Once again you are not seeing the point, it is DSLR QUALITY without the bulk, it is a fixed lens, whats the issue with that, if you don't want to shoot with a fixed lens don't buy it, however it doesn't lessen the quality of the camera! Just go and look at the quality of the pictures that the bloggers/professional photographers are achieving, the 35mm fov is a superb walk around and very versatile. The only stumbling block will be the person behind the lens!

IT is pointless marking this camera down as a fixed lens as that is what it has been designed to be and if you look at the characteristics of the lens and how close it is in relation to the sensor it couldn't be anything else but a fixed lens! Anyway I love it, I'll let the naysayers continue to moan and the rest to enjoy such a remarkable achievement. In my eyes this camera is destined to become a classic.

I don't see the point. 1/ There is no such thing as DSLR QUALITY. Interchangeable lenses give you the versatility. It's not a 'bulk' mainly if the camera body itself is not too big.2/ 35mm is ok if you want to take photos mainly of a couple of people. Perhaps the bloggers/pros you mentioned do it. 3/ FF gives you practically nothing extra if you put the photos on the web like the bloggers.

I think this camera is definitely for people who buy gems not tools.

BTW1 I'd never buy a fixed lense camera even if this would be only ca. $100. Otherwise I have nothing against the Sony. In the camera business they are really innovative.

BTW2 what's the meaning of sentences like this: "characteristics of the lens and how close it is in relation to the sensor it couldn't be anything else but a fixed lens"

1) Sorry most people will understand what "DSLR quality" means, I could say Full Frame quality for the RX1 but unlike you I don't want to play semantics.2) You are seriously misguided and inexperienced if thats all you think you are able to do with a 35mm - and No I am talking about professional people who far more than taking a few snaps of people! Obviously you have undertaken no proper research of your own and never used an RX1! 4) Once again you are showing your lack of experience and understanding! 5) I point to my answer in 4.

I understand you wouldn't buy a fixed lens camera, and unlike you I have no reason to either argue against your own put down a camera because it has a fixed lens!

Read Sony's transcripts and watch the videos where they discussed the challenges of putting together the RX1.

A viewfinder is a must. Sony should discard the flash. Available light photographs from RX1 have been demonstrated to be good. But vignetting is a serious flaw. Post-processing is not ideal. Sony's work is cut out if they want to sell RX1 in numbers. Why should a pro have to carry a separate viewfinder for RX1? He will want the RX1 for its quality and compactness.

"I can't think of any compelling reason for a pro to buy a fixed lens camera at such a high price." I'm betting that lots of pros will get the RX-1 for personal work or as a second body. 35mm can be a very useful focal length for certain types of shooting. Most contemporary photographers cannot imagine using a single focal length. They have to be changing focal length constantly. For them, the notion of a fixed prime lens, no matter how good, is horrifying. Those folks are free to use whatever they want, but could they please stop banging on those who are capable of a different style of photography.

Federico, appreciate if you can send some comparison shots from RX1: with vs. without corrections. It'll good to see the true performance of the lens. I think one of the biggest selling point for RX1 is the lens.

i would swear when the review first went up it said 80%, but that must have been a senior moment. does it matter? even if it said 90% and it didn't appeal to me - for any variety of reasons that might not have to do with just iq - i wouldn't buy it.

Be careful how much emphasis you place on DPRs Studio comparisons of the RX1. Here is an exchange you missed:

I SAID: "I doubt anyone uses DPRs studio comparisons as the sole criteria in a purchase decision. Many including myself are less than impressed with this tool. In the case of the RX1, DPR has the camera set to f11 which is not its best performing stop. Having said that, YES it most certainly is worth every penny of the cost when you take into consideration high ISO performance, OOC jpeg quality, lens signature, rendering and bokeh. All are superior in the RX1."

TO WIT: R. Butler of DPR said: "This camera highlights all the reasons we're having to develop a new test scene - even, colour-balanced lighting doesn't show low-light performance and the close working distances, particularly with cameras that don't reach to 85-90mm equiv, end up giving atypical results."

The first attribute I look at in a digital camera is dynamic range. The dynamic range of the DSC-RX1 is less than that of my Nex-C3. Why would I want the camera over the Nex? What does the bigger sensor area do for me? The end goal is a picture.

The dynamic range that DPR reports only applies to JPEGs, and has more to do with the specific tone curve that is applied during image processing, than with the true "engineering DR" of the sensor.According to DxO the RX1 has 2 EVs wider dynamic range at base ISO, and is better through the entire ISO range. This gives you an advantage, if you shoot RAW and apply your own tone curves in post-processing.

I really would buy such a compact camera of excellence appeal. But similarly to Leica, Sony do not offer true innovation.

Leica has a lousy display, questionable sensor. Sony got no viewfinder. About contemporary connectivity we do not speak. Tilt screen – what’s that. And then the ailing Zeiss getting thrown out by a Sigma with the new 35mm. We got a very competitive environment. This is good news.

Here we communicate in the USD 2’500 and up counting territory. The physical results of this Sony still stays somewhat strangely aside the tracks of real cameras needed. Business and consumers ignored

"Zeiss getting thrown out by a Sigma with the new 35mm" - source? DXO results are opposite.About viewfinder - You have an opportunity to choose OVF or tilting EVF. Not cheap, but this camera itself is for Ones who are ready to pay for the best possible quality for camera of such size.

u r right about dxo's result being (too) simplistic to be a realistic reference. several zeiss have slight weakiness in center sharpness but beat sigma hands down on corners. does dxo give zeiss a better overall score? nope.

i am not saying dxo measure has no basic; it is objective and repeatable. but, there are measurable attributes that are important to the image (the entire frame) through the lense and dxo is missing these ago old attributes.

i wish dxo can do better and we not use it for now until it is a better reference.

I don't really see a point to using AF on cameras like this, and certainly at this focal length. The only thing I truly miss is an integrated EVF (in this case, OVF would work just fine too, if focus peaking/point information can be overlaid).

Not much since I haven't felt the need to consider a FF digital body, but I would guess 90% of my photography is with manual focus and a vast majority of it happens in 24-50mm FF equivalent.

I'm fairly comfortable with very thin DOF and MF (taken with NEX-3 and Sony 135mm f/2.8 with considerably shallower DoF than 35mm f/2 on FF would entail): http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8340/8251855140_a3e57b7d1e_c.jpg

I'm sure street photography existed before the advent of auto focus. But trust me, MF can be equally and sometimes more effective than AF, when the camera makes it easier (Focus Peaking is a wonderful thing).

Cameras with rangefinders were great. Get a rangefinder and it worked. You can do that with RX1 too. What they didn't have was any other method to compose. Now we have LCD, and Focus Peaking and Focus Magnify.

That you find RX1 to be very expensive, is a different issue altogether.

"I'm fairly comfortable with very thin DOF and MF (taken with NEX-3 and Sony 135mm f/2.8 with considerably shallower DoF than 35mm f/2 on FF would entail): "

Have you actually done the calculation? Going by minimum focus distances, your 135mm f/2.8 lens on a NEX will give you a minimum of 4mm DOF. In the normal focus range, the RX1 will focus as close as 24cm yielding 4.8mm of DOF wide open. In the macro mode with its 14cm minimum focus distance, the RX1 has a scant 1.4mm of DOF.

@LarryK: "Yes, and by the time you've focus peaked and Focus Magnified and chimped, the shot is gone."That might happen with someone not being proficient with MF, even with such tools as focus peaking. But then, you may have never tried it.

@joejack951: "Have you actually done the calculation? Going by minimum focus distances, your 135mm f/2.8 lens on a NEX will give you a minimum of 4mm DOF. In the normal focus range, the RX1 will focus as close as 24cm yielding 4.8mm of DOF wide open. In the macro mode with its 14cm minimum focus distance, the RX1 has a scant 1.4mm of DOF."

The shot of the fly involves a DoF about the same as the length of the fly. At about 1m (MFD is 87cm), the DoF calculates to about half cm, about right.

On FF, with 35mm f/2 (or 24mm/1.4 on APS-C), you'd have to be 25cm from the subject for that DoF. So, if one can be achieved, and I regularly do it, why can't the other? What exactly were you trying to prove with your argument? That thin DoF and MF can't be mated?

"We wouldn't usually consider 35mm as an obvious focal length for close-ups, but have to give credit to Sony for providing the option. However in the unlikely event that you're buying a fixed lens compact with a semi-wideangle lens with an eye to shooting closeups frequently, it's worth knowing that the Fujifilm X100(S) offers closer focusing and higher magnification."

I personally like macros with wide angle or semi-wide angle to show some (hopefully nicely blurred) scenery behind the subjects and to lay some stress on the (seemingly magnified) subject in the foreground - it's useful for food as well as for (wild) flowers and other static objects if the the surroundings look good. I'm aware that you risk casting your own shadow on the scenery.

So thanks DPR for mentioning the macro talents and for recommending alternatives.

With the FOURTH best sensor (93) on the planet, just behind powerhouses like the D800/D800E and D600, the RX1 lens can withstand some less than stellar marks. It's the COMBINATION of the Full Frame Sensor and Zeiss lens that makes this camera so sweet. They don't measure the signature or the character of the lens which is sublime.

Nothing (that dramatic) is being removed. They're just different lens designs, and one does better than the other. The camera is irrelevant. Aside from the fact that Sony doesn't have a mirror in between the lens and sensor, which can make lens design easier.

Read the soundimageplus review and all I can say is, yet another idiot who bashes a camera never having used it. I really wish fools like this could find a more productive use of their time, maybe cleaning pubic restrooms.

Review sites are review sites. it's opinion based. so, we shouldn't be bashing them. Dpreview R.Butler, keeps participating by saying that how good the camera is and cost effective it is... that is his opinion. Same as K.Rockwell, he is a colour freak. he likes vivid type shooting and he is very particular about colours. that's his preference and he has strong opinions about it.